Estimating Health-State Utility for Economic Models in Clinical Studies: An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report.

Cost-utility models are increasingly used in many countries to establish whether the cost of a new intervention can be justified in terms of health benefits. Health-state utility (HSU) estimates (the preference for a given state of health on a cardinal scale where 0 represents dead and 1 represents full health) are typically among the most important and uncertain data inputs in cost-utility models. Clinical trials represent an important opportunity for the collection of health-utility data. However, trials designed primarily to evaluate efficacy and safety often present challenges to the optimal collection of HSU estimates for economic models. Careful planning is needed to determine which of the HSU estimates may be measured in planned trials; to establish the optimal methodology; and to plan any additional studies needed. This report aimed to provide a framework for researchers to plan the collection of health-utility data in clinical studies to provide high-quality HSU estimates for economic modeling. Recommendations are made for early planning of health-utility data collection within a research and development program; design of health-utility data collection during protocol development for a planned clinical trial; design of prospective and cross-sectional observational studies and alternative study types; and statistical analyses and reporting.

Simulation of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe in the lipid-lowering treatment pathway in Austria using the contemporary SANTORINI cohort of high and very high risk patients.

OBJECTIVE: The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society dyslipidaemia guidelines necessitate greater use of combination therapies. We describe a real-world cohort of patients in Austria and simulate the addition of oral bempedoic acid and ezetimibe to estimate the proportion of patients reaching goals. METHODS: Patients at high or very high cardiovascular risk on lipid-lowering treatments (excluding proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors) from the Austrian cohort of the observational SANTORINI study were included using specific criteria. For patients not at their risk-based goals at baseline, addition of ezetimibe (if not already received) and subsequently bempedoic acid was simulated using a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: A cohort of patients (N = 144) with a mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 76.4 mg/dL, with 94% (n = 135) on statins and 24% (n = 35) on ezetimibe monotherapy or in combination, were used in the simulation. Only 36% of patients were at goal (n = 52). Sequential simulation of ezetimibe (where applicable) and bempedoic acid increased the proportion of patients at goal to 69% (n = 100), with a decrease in the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol from 76.4 mg/dL at baseline to 57.7 mg/dL overall. CONCLUSIONS: The SANTORINI real-world data in Austria suggest that a proportion of high and very high-risk patients remain below the guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. Optimising use of oral ezetimibe and bempedoic acid after statins in the lipid-lowering pathway could result in substantially more patients attaining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals, likely with additional health benefits.

Methodologies used in cost-effectiveness models for evaluating treatments in major depressive disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness estimates as an aid for selecting interventions with an appropriate balance between health benefits and costs. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of published cost-effectiveness models in major depressive disorder (MDD) with a focus on the methods employed. Key components of the identified models are discussed and any challenges in developing models are highlighted. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify all primary model-based economic evaluations of MDD interventions indexed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EconLit, and PsycINFO between January 2000 and May 2010. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies were included in the review. These studies predominantly evaluated antidepressant medications. The analyses were performed across a broad set of countries. The majority of models were decision-trees; eight were Markov models. Most models had a time horizon of less than 1 year. The majority of analyses took a payer perspective. Clinical input data were obtained from pooled placebo-controlled comparative trials, single head-to-head trials, or meta-analyses. The majority of studies (24 of 37) used treatment success or symptom-free days as main outcomes, 14 studies incorporated health state utilities, and 2 used disability-adjusted life-years. A few models (14 of 37) incorporated probabilities and costs associated with suicide and/or suicide attempts. Two models examined the cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment in patients who had failed to respond to initial therapy. Resource use data used in the models were obtained mostly from expert opinion. All studies, with the exception of one, explored parameter uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified several model input data gaps, including utility values in partial responders, efficacy of second-line treatments, and resource utilisation estimates obtained from relevant, high-quality studies. It highlighted the differences in outcome measures among the trials of MDD interventions, which can lead to difficulty in performing indirect comparisons, and the inconsistencies in definitions of health states used in the clinical trials and those used in utility studies. Clinical outcomes contributed to the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates to a greater degree than costs or utility weights.

Efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism following total hip or knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis.

Dabigatran etexilate has been investigated in three phase III trials for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Health technology assessment agencies increasingly require meta-analyses of all relevant evidence for an intervention, if appropriate. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety data for the recommended dose of dabigatran etexilate, 220 mg once daily (od), for VTE prophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA), and discuss the appropriateness of combining the data. Risk ratios (RR) for VTE and bleed end-points were estimated using fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were performed combining RE-MODEL and RE-NOVATE, which compared dabigatran etexilate with enoxaparin 40 mg od after TKA and THA, respectively, and also including RE-MOBILIZE, which compared dabigatran etexilate with enoxaparin 30 mg twice daily after TKA. Tests for statistical heterogeneity were performed using the Chi-squared statistic. No significant differences were detected between dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin in any of the end-points analysed, either in the two trial analysis (all p > 0.15), or when all three trials were combined ( all p > 0.30). RRs (random effects) for the composite end-point total VTE and all-cause mortality were 0.95 [95% confidence intervals 0.82 - 1.10] and 1.05 [0.87 - 1.26] in the two and three trial analyses, respectively. Meta-analysis of RE-MODEL and RE-NOVATE supported the conclusions of the individual trials that dabigatran etexilate is non-inferior to enoxaparin 40 mg od, with a similar safety profile. Meta-analysis of all three trials found no significant differences between treatments in any of the end-points analysed. Heterogeneity between the trials cannot be ruled out.

Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee and hip replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This was an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of oral dabigatran etexilate compared with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR) surgery from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: Dabigatran etexilate (220 mg once daily) was compared with enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) in patients undergoing TKR (duration of prophylaxis, 6-10 days) and THR (duration of prophylaxis, 28-35 days). The 10-week acute postsurgical phase was modeled using a decision tree. A Markov process (1-year cycle length) was used to model long-term events (recurrent VTE, postthrombotic syndrome, and consequences of intracranial hemorrhage) for patients' remaining lifetimes. Relative risks for VTE and bleeding events were derived from 2 Phase III studies that compared dabigatran etexilate with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. The probabilities of long-term events were estimated using data from published longitudinal studies. RESULTS: Rates of VTE and bleeding events did not differ significantly between dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin. Dabigatran etexilate was less costly than enoxaparin in TKR and substantially less costly in THR, primarily due to differences in administration costs. The cost of prophylaxis for THR patients, including drugs and administration costs, was estimated at pound 137 for dabigatran etexilate and pound 237 for enoxaparin ( pound 7 for nursing time during the hospital stay, pound 91 for nurse home visits for administration after hospital discharge, and an additional pound 2 in drug costs). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of pound 20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probability of cost-effectiveness for dabigatran etexilate was 75% in TKR and 97% in THR. These results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the UK National Health Service, thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate was cost-saving compared with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily, with comparable efficacy and safety profiles.

Cost-Effectiveness of Olaratumab in Combination with Doxorubicin for Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line treatments for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have changed little for 40 years, and outcomes have been poor. Recently, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration conditionally approved olaratumab in combination with doxorubicin (Olara + Dox) based on a randomized phase II trial that reported a significant 11.8-month improvement in median survival versus single-agent doxorubicin (Dox). The present study investigated the cost-effectiveness of Olara + Dox compared with Dox and five other standard-of-care regimens from the US payer perspective. METHODS: An economic model was constructed to estimate costs and outcomes over patients' lifetimes from start of therapy. Progression-free and overall survival were based on survival analysis of patient-level data and a meta-analysis. Adverse-event rates were based on trials. Costs were from published sources. RESULTS: Olara + Dox resulted in an estimated additional 1.27 life-years (LYs) compared with Dox, with an increase in total expected lifetime costs of $133,653. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated at $105,408 per LY gained; in a fully incremental analysis, all other regimens were dominated (higher costs and lower LYs or a higher ICER). CONCLUSION: Olara + Dox is cost-effective for STS treatment compared with Dox and other standard-of-care regimens at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000 per LY and above.

Cost effectiveness of pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the primary cause of vision loss in the elderly and results in significant economic and humanistic burden. The selective vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, pegaptanib (Macugen) is indicated for patients with neovascular AMD. Guidance is needed regarding the cost effectiveness of treatment, any variation between sub-populations of differing clinical characteristics and the optimum duration of treatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of pegaptanib versus best supportive care (BSC) for AMD from the perspective of the UK government, and to evaluate the impact of patient characteristics and differing treatment discontinuation scenarios. METHODS: A cohort of 1000 patients aged >45 years with a best-corrected visual acuity (VA) in their better-seeing eye of < or =6/12 was modelled. Patients were either treated with pegaptanib (0.3mg every 6 weeks for a maximum of 2 years in their better-seeing eye only) or received BSC (no active treatment). Supportive services were provided for patients with a VA < or =6/60. A 10-year Markov model composed of 12 VA states (defined by individual Snellen lines) and a dead state was constructed. The model reported herein was used to support submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). NICE guidance is expected to be available in October 2007 and the SMC advice was issued on 7 July 2006. SMC accepted pegaptanib for use in patients with visual acuity between 6/12 and 6/60 (inclusive) and should be stopped if visual acuity falls below 6/60 during treatment or where severe visual loss is experienced. Time-dependent transition probabilities for the loss and gain of Snellen lines were derived from parametric survival curves fitted to patient-level data from the VISION trials. Survival curves were fitted with treatment and baseline Snellen scores as covariates; additional curves were fitted with the addition of age, gender, lesion type or lesion size as covariates. Mortality rates were adjusted for the age, gender and VA of the population. Cost effectiveness was expressed as the incremental cost (IC) per vision-year saved and IC/QALY. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analysis. Costs (year 2005 values) and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per anum. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, treatment was targeted to patients with a VA of 6/12 to 6/95 and discontinued after 2 years, or earlier if VA fell below 6/95 or by > or =6 lines. The IC/QALY was estimated as 8023 pounds(upper 95% CI 20,641 pounds). Cost effectiveness varied by age (age <75 years = 2033 pounds/QALY; age > or =75 years = 11,657 pounds/QALY) and by pre-treatment VA (6/12-6/95 = 8023 pounds/QALY; 6/12-6/60 = 6664 pounds/QALY; 6/12-6/24 = 1920 pounds/QALY). Gender and lesion type or size had little effect. Cost effectiveness was not sensitive to precise rules for treatment discontinuation, but was maximised if treatment was discontinued in patients no longer likely to benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that pegaptanib treatment is likely to be cost effective across all groups studied, and marginally more cost effective in younger patients and those with better pre-treatment VA. Cost effectiveness appears to be optimised if treatment is discontinued after 1 year if individual patients' VA has dropped by > or =6 lines from pre-treatment levels, or at any time if it drops below 6/95. However, strict application of discontinuation rules does not appear to be necessary for pegaptanib to be cost effective. Clinical judgement and patient preference should be an important determinant in decisions about stopping treatment.

Pharmacoeconomics of dabigatran etexilate for prevention of thromboembolism after joint replacement surgery.

Dabigatran etexilate (DE) is a novel oral anticoagulant indicated for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or total knee replacement surgery. The majority of these patients receive some kind of thromboprophylaxis, most commonly low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). However, the subcutaneous route of LMWH administration may act as a barrier to the continuation of effective anticoagulant prophylaxis after discharge from hospital. The oral route of DE administration may allow more patients to receive extended thromboprophylaxis and may reduce costs, such as those associated with nurse time for LMWH administrations, platelet monitoring, needlestick injuries and sharps disposal. This article presents an overview of the clinical evidence for DE and a systematic review of the economic evaluations of the drug.

Docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for early node-positive breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis.

PURPOSE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) compared with FAC (fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) when administered as adjuvant therapy to women with node-positive early breast cancer in the United Kingdom (UK), both with and without primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). METHODS: A standard health economic Markov model estimated the cost and outcome for node-positive early breast cancer patients, from initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy to death. Patient-level data were used from the Breast Cancer International Research Group (BCIRG) 001 trial for estimates of the effect of chemotherapy on toxicity and outcome, and an observational data set collected from a UK university hospital provided estimates of resource use and outcome for patients with relapsed disease. RESULTS: Over a 10-year analysis timeframe, the incremental cost per life-year saved associated with the use of TAC rather than FAC was estimated as pound 15,418 (95% CI, pound 13,734 to pound 17,997) and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (IC/QALY) was pound 18,188 (95% CI, pound 14,161 to pound 32,422). The addition of primary G-CSF (lenograstim or filgrastim) to the TAC regimen resulted in an IC/QALY of pound 20,432. The results were most sensitive to the quality-of-life (QOL) score for patients in remission postchemotherapy. However, even if QOL was assumed to be as poor as for patients with metastatic disease, the IC/QALY estimate rose only to pound 32,430. CONCLUSION: The use of adjuvant TAC rather than FAC for node-positive early breast cancer patients is cost effective, despite the increased drug and toxicity treatment costs, and when primary G-CSF prophylaxis is given to all patients.